PrepTest 144
[lcid:3672] Prep Test 144 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1
Reading comp
Passage
. The following passage was adapted from a law journal . article published in 1998. . . Industries that use
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Legal Studies
Paragraph 1
While researchers fear that biotechnology patents will impede scientific research, their arguments rely on mistaken assumptions, and patents might actually provide an incentive to do research.
Key Lines:
Lines 8-10 - A question/problem is presented
Lines 14-17 - The problem is highlighted
Lines 17-19 - Two specific sources of the problem are noted
Lines 40-44 - The Author points out a mistaken assumption of those who fear patents
Line 47 - The Author introduces one reason they're mistaken
Line 51 - The Author introduces a second reason they're mistaken
Line 54 - The Author brings up a positive of patents
Meta-Structure:
Question/Answer - The passage starts with a question over whether biotech patents are hurting research. The answers make up the debate, with some scientists saying they do and others, along with the Author, saying they don't necessarily and might actually spur research. Since this debate dominates the passage and the Author takes a side, the Author's answer to the question is the main point.
Last Thoughts:
There's an interesting symmetry to the structure of the two arguments—both get explicitly broken into two parts. In Paragraph 2, those who fear patents fear exclusion and contracts. In Paragraph 3, the Author argues that they're wrong for two reasons. Knowing what each of these pairs is supporting, what they say, and where to find them in the passage will likely be key to answering the questions efficiently.
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- Two groups that agree are introduced; a question is presented
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Biotech business and academics think commercial research should be patentable
- Question - Are these patents hindering research?
- Patents facing scrutiny (scientists and policy makers)
- Paragraph note
- The threat to research is outlined
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Enforcement - A patent holder stops others from using basic research materials
- Contracts - A patent holder requires someone to pay a lot to use research materials
- Example - Patent holder asks for money to get research costs back
- Academics - Fear corporations will charge too much
- Paragraph note
- The Author pivots to a defense of patents
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Concession - Used to be communal, but not all information was shared
- Wrong assumption of scientists against patents - Patents allow people to prevent others from using stuff
- Why wrong - Not applied to noncommercial research for 2 reasons
- 1 - It's expensive to litigate
- 2 - Judges don't enforce against academic research
- Other patent pro - Incentive to research to make money
While researchers fear that biotechnology patents will impede scientific research, their arguments rely on mistaken assumptions, and patents might actually provide an incentive to do research.
Key Lines:
Lines 8-10 - A question/problem is presented
Lines 14-17 - The problem is highlighted
Lines 17-19 - Two specific sources of the problem are noted
Lines 40-44 - The Author points out a mistaken assumption of those who fear patents
Line 47 - The Author introduces one reason they're mistaken
Line 51 - The Author introduces a second reason they're mistaken
Line 54 - The Author brings up a positive of patents
Meta-Structure:
Question/Answer - The passage starts with a question over whether biotech patents are hurting research. The answers make up the debate, with some scientists saying they do and others, along with the Author, saying they don't necessarily and might actually spur research. Since this debate dominates the passage and the Author takes a side, the Author's answer to the question is the main point.
Last Thoughts:
There's an interesting symmetry to the structure of the two arguments—both get explicitly broken into two parts. In Paragraph 2, those who fear patents fear exclusion and contracts. In Paragraph 3, the Author argues that they're wrong for two reasons. Knowing what each of these pairs is supporting, what they say, and where to find them in the passage will likely be key to answering the questions efficiently.
Question prompt
The academic researchers mentioned
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: B
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Legal
Answer choices
-
AThe competitive dynamics of Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 32-34) These researchers are worried that market dynamics will lead to basic research not being affordable, so they're against allowing these dynamics to determine the course of research. -
BThe inventor of a Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)
Strategy Overview:
Review the argument/viewpoint of the researchers mentioned in Lines 30-31, then find a principle that backs up that argument
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
This question tasks us with finding a principle in the answers that lines up with an argument/viewpoint in the passage. When we're looking for a principle in the answers, we treat that as a Strengthen (Principle) question, as it should add to the argument in question.
Lines 30-31 are in Paragraph 2, and that was the paragraph where the argument of those afraid of the effect of biotech patents on research showed up. Specifically here, the researchers noted here are afraid that corporations that own patents will charge too much for researchers who want to use their patented materials. They cite this as part of their argument in opposition to biotechnology patents.
So, as with all Strengthen (Principle) questions, we want to connect the premise/details to the judgment/conclusion. Here, that would be something like:
If corporations can charge so much money to use their patent that it would prevent basic research from being done, then such patents shouldn't be allowed.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 30-34) The researchers in question oppose biotech patents because they "fear" patent holders will charge so much for the use of their patented materials it'll stop research. That argument is strengthened if, as a general principle, inventors shouldn't be allowed to charge so much that others can't do research—and thus if that's what a patent leads to, then they shouldn't be allowed.
Key Takeaway:
Principle questions show up in RC! When they do, figure out if it's asking you to apply a principle that's in the passage, or find a principle that lines up with an argument in the passage. This will let you know what type of Principle question you're dealing with, and you can use the same process as in LR to tackle it. -
CAcademic researchers should take Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 30-34) These researchers want to use the materials invented by others in their own research, so they wouldn't want researchers to prevent their materials from getting out. -
DUniversities should take aggressive Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Line 32) The researchers in this section talk about corporate patent holders, so this answer about universities is out of scope. -
EFunding for scientific research Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 30-34) The researchers don't talk about funding—they talk about what is being charged to use patented materials—so this answer is out of scope.
What this tests
Discussion
No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.